Comments
Strongly agree.I have worked for over 10 years in an accounting services company managing around 100 customer environments across NAV 4.0, NAV 5.0, NAV 2009, NAV 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and BC14 On-Premises.In my experience, those older on-premises versions have not caused anywhere near the same amount of operational disruption as the current online update model.The challenge is that accounting firms and service providers often manage large numbers of customers. When an update introduces a regression, the impact is multiplied across dozens or even hundreds of companies, creating a significant support burden with little warning and no additional resources.We need more control over update scheduling, better phased rollouts, and the ability to keep sandboxes ahead of production for a meaningful validation period.Not every update needs to land in the middle of the summer vacation season.
Relates to LCS ISSUE 756782 https://fix.eu.lcs.dynamics.com/Issue/Details/1429?bugId=756782&dbType=3&qc=50bf9570dd9e20dc32d9bf607fb4d3adb6f63d9be24571a522462b55a7acb131As this data is the basis for INTRASTAT-Reporting which is a regulatory requirement at least within the EU, for me this should be fixed in the core for all, rather than individually in each instance.
Here’s the revised version with your intent reflected:Thank you for the response and for confirming the current position.Given this gap in standard functionality, we have implemented custom batch jobs internally to support the process:- Forecast allocation: bulk allocation of period keys to forecast lines- Date correction: moving forecast lines out of closed periodsThis approach has worked well for us, however other customers may also find value in a standard solution. The current process still relies on manual, line-level updates, which can be challenging to manage at scale.A standard, scalable capability for bulk period key allocation and forecast date correction would reduce manual effort and avoid customers needing to create and maintain custom development for this scenario. I would still see value in Microsoft reconsidering this for Supply Planning in a future release.Thanks.